OpticalLimits is one of my favorite review sites, and they recently completed their review of the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM.
First, let's face facts, the Canon RF 16mm is the cheapest ever full frame 16mm that has ever been produced by an original camera manufacturer. Ever. There are going to be some compromises to its performance.
There are usually three main contributors to lens design;
- Cost
- Size / Weight
- Quality
Each one of these factors affects the other. In the case of the RF 16mm F2.8 you have a small, light, and cheap 16mm ultra-wide prime. Quality is going to suffer.
If any of you have been following my patent application commentary over the years at CanonNews – you'll know that I've been very outspoken about Canon's trends on making the image circle smaller on lenses. It isn't an uncommon thing in Canon's patent applications. However, while doing so can reduce the cost and size / weight, it does have a pretty dramatic effect on image quality.
OpticalLimits did quite a thorough review of the RF 16mm F2.8 and while the optical quality did suffer, they do admit it's a huge bang for the buck lens that is hard to pass up – just don't look too closely at the corners.
The Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM is a lens with many facets. It comes down to where you come from and what you want. For instance, if you own an EOS R3 or R6, it's a decent ultra-wide prime lens – because, at 20 megapixels, even a Coke bottle is sharp enough. Well, almost. While on an EOS R5 and 45 megapixels, you don't really want to look at the image corners. It is, of course, also worth noting that this is the cheapest, fast ultra-wide prime ever released from a genuine manufacturer. Even when ignoring all quality concerns, it's dirt cheap for what it is. If you can't afford the real thing, having a 16mm ultra-wide lens is better than having none at all.
They give it a low grade of optical quality but a resounding 5 out of 5 stars for price / performance.
Read the entire review here.
I do actually get some use out of it:
- hikes (so so light weight)
- class field trips --> group shots and interesting angles
- casual city trip
But at one point, I'll need a serious landscape/ nightscape/ astro capable UWA option.
What a great quote!
"Overall, you may argue that you get what you pay for but this isn't really true. A 16mmm f/2.8 for this kind of money is an insane bargain even with the mentioned limitations. Just don't expect Mercedes quality for a Lada price tag."
The coke bottle comment seems a little over-the-top to me. This lens is considerably sharper than the old EF 17-40 f/4 L which used to be very popular and well regarded in its heyday.
Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality
Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality
Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality
Landscapes, which usually require sharpness right into the edges and corners.
Architecture, which requires high sharpness across most of the field, and freedom from aberrations.
Astro, which requires very high sharpness and freedom from distortion and aberrations.
Even at the more forgiving 20MP resolution of an R6, it would seem highly unsuitable for any of the above.
I see this as a lens for experimenters - people who want to "play" with ultra-wide just to see how they get on with it, but who aren't remotely interested in forking out the kind of dosh needed for an L optic. The cost is so low that it will tempt many people who would otherwise have steered clear of such short a focal length.
It will sell extremely well, and those who find that they enjoy ultra-wide shooting, will end up upgrading to an L of similar focal length, so yet again it's a win-win for clever old Canon!
I hike to get landscape shots. I travel to get architecture shots. Astro, both of those. For hiking and traveling, small is a real bonus.
My goals are to have files suitable for display on a 4k screen and for printing 13"x19" coffee-table books. I don't need huge gallery-style prints. This lens should easily do that.
It is far from useless uncorrected. I love the look in forest photos without vertical and horizontal lines and the accentuation of the centre of the image, once the extreme borders are cropped.
The Lightroom profile is significantly wider than the in-camera or DPP profile.
I do some astrophotography and compared it to me Samyang 14/2.8. The Samyang is sharper, but at f/4 the RF16 is close. A critical distortion is coma and dissppointing that Optical Limits didn't look at this. At f/4, the RF16 is okay.
Landscape astrophotography means having interesting landscapes and good stars. The RF16 has come hiking with me, when the Samyang stayed home. I sold the Samyang and am happy with the decision.
This opens perspectives you never can do with any of the RF/EF15-35 or so.
This lens is fun to use.
I did the opposite (although it's the RF 14 2.8 AF Samyang. Maybe my 16 was a bad copy)
I don't know how your copy of the 17-40 compares to mine and how important corner performance is for your work, so take the above with a grain of salt.
An European brand was about number 50, one year later number 15, without any technical change.
How did they achieve this? By paying every customer a phone call, asking about satisfaction and what they could do for them...
I'd take such "reports" with a heap of salt...
Yet, I agree that Lexus fully deserves their ranking, but I'd lots more skeptical (in Europe) about the other two, huge diesel issues (4D4) or sometimes extreme corrosion. Mercedes payed a high price for a very (too?) sophisticated engine technology and electronics, and, maybe, arrogance. Lada is far from being as bad as many believe...